45
comments:

Does that mean we shouldn't use terms such as silly, knuckleheaded, idiotic and other such derogatory terms as have all too often been found in the writings of the editorial staff of the Observer?

Otherwise I agree. The forum you, and The Observer provides, is a nice place to exchange views. It is also an good place to watch people's minds work.

One of the things I find most interesting is how people read a piece and respond to something which was never written.

Further the responses may become vituperative, when that is uncalled for. Then in frustration low brow olde English descriptive terms are brought out.

It is all rather humorous. And honestly, I find the sophomoric attempts at slander to be the height of vanity, as I, for one, could not care less what the writer's write. It seems they imagine otherwise.

Then there are the serious contributors who use facts and make references which can be checked to back up their facts and opinions.

Mary, thanks for the admonition against anyone here using any profanities. I myself was the target of a couple of really choice (and completely unoriginal) ones, and I'm glad to see that I was correct when I said you'd probably remove those posts when you returned. It's pretty sad when someone has to resort to swearing because they find themselves on the losing side of an argument.

As I said before, I don't swear online (or in e-mail, for that matter). In person, I can scorch the drapes at 20 feet, but I'm not going to curse in someone else's house or in someone else's blog... so you won't ever have to worry about me swearing in your blog.

I agree with Lewis that it's amusing to see the range of responses here. Some people actually read what you write and put some thought into their responses, while others truly appear to be devoid of logic or independent thought and just parrot what they've read or (more likely) heard.

"Silly," "knuckleheaded," and "idiotic" are acceptable. I'll even let commenters call one another "morons" though that's stretching the civility envelope.

I reluctantly allowed "fart," though I won't let my daughter say it in my hearing. After all, tere's now a children's book, "Walter the Farting Dog." (What IS the world coming to?)

And we've even had discussions in the editorial department about whether to allow various terms including "ass" such as dumb-ass or silly-ass in blog comments. We came down on the side of allowing it, but reluctantly. So that may change.

Generally, if we won't print it in The Observer, I don't allow it on the blog. And as a mass market product whose readership ranges from 6-year-olds to 106-year-olds, the Observer is on the prudish side.

Gotta go work for a living now. Have a good weekend everyone, and I wish chocolate Easter eggs for all who celebrate the holiday and any others who like chocolate.

We took the kid to New York City and rode mass transit -- the subway -- just about everywhere. We also took the train from the Newark Airport into the city.It reinforced (for me, I know others would disagree) how important mass transit is for a large city.

New York subway and bus rides are now $2, but for $24 you can get a 7-day unlimited pass good for subway and bus. We got our money's worth. Not always what one says about Manhattan experiences.

Guys, what New Yorkers get, that some of you don't is that some subsidies serve the greater good of the community. Call it socialistic or communistic if you wish, but this is not an issue for people up there. New Yorkers know how gridlocked their city would be if it was not for their transit system. People in many other cities, including Charlotte, are catching on to this way of thinking. Indeed, the woes of building a light rail system here are ugly, and yes, building a more robust system (which we're doing) is a much more viable alternative. That said, all of us have benefitted in using some government subsidized program, whether we want to admit it or not, provided with 'someone else's ' money. Obviously, some of you know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

I value being able to watch TV on a 62" high definition TV. I am sure there is a signficant population in Mecklenburg County who value this as well. According to your logic of subsidising value, there should be a tax payer subsidy to pay 86% of the cost of 62" high definition TV's for everyone.

Please forward the subsidy immediately. It's Master's weekend and HDTV only does it justice.

The term "greater good" is an attempt to describe some amorphous group of people and ascribe a value to them for some material thing. In using this term the writer intends to say the value to a lot of people is more important to the value to a single person.

However, taxes and their expenditure do not fit that description. The greater good would be for the taxes not to be used as the most people would benefit from their lowering as opposed to the fewer who benefit from their expenditure.

ANON asking for the TV is exactly right. Giving him, and everyone who wants one and HDTV is no different than giving some people a train. In fact, more people would benefit from the HDTV giveaway.

That is the greater good.

Further, good when used in this context is strictly an opinion which always requires the force of government to enact.

Thus: the greater good would be served of all ANON's used their given name.

The greater good would be served if there was a national requirement for military or other service.

The greater good would be served if everyone had a 60 MPH car, with free maintenance.

Etc. (not that I believe any of that)

"Greater Good" is used by those who think they know more than others about how we all should live.

Being a Libertarian I say, stay out of my life, and lower my taxes which are subsidizing your friends.

Comrades, this is not a democracy, but a republic, a republic by representation. We elect people to represent us, (even Bill James) and they make determinations for us as to the way money should be spent, when a long view is necessary, etc.

There are good points on all sides, but we need to provide for now as well as later, and if later is not planned and infrastructure not put in place prior to the need we will find ourselves dying instead of growing.

Ah, truth comes out. The greater good is defined by those who benefit from that good.

Ok, so my TV example was a bit absurd, but it helped prove the point. Let's try a few others:

Everyones income should be subsidised to $100,000/yr. Would that not benefit the greater good if everyone had the same amount of money?

Energy cost, especially those for transportation (...including transit), are increasing. Therefore, we should all receive an energy subsidy to offset the cost increases. That would benefit the greater good, right?

The real truth is that anyone can think of a subsidy for the greater good. The real question is its affordability in relation to the scope of the benefit it provides. Light rail only provides benefits in its narrow corridor, to a narrow population since it is fixed to run in that corridor. Bus transit, however, is inherently flexible and can provide focused transportation to a greater population. It's a greater benefit in relation to its cost.

Riding a transit train is cool and has a certain amount of cachet and sexiness (...can that word be used in this blog???). But in the end, light rail's benefit relative to its cost is significantly less compared to flexible bus transit.

Let's prove that out: let's say the light rail corridors were bus only dedicated roads in each corridor. Would all the die hard pro-trainers ride it? If not, all you are asking for is a subsidy for a cool mode of transportation and that does NOT provide for the greater good.

With 8.2 million residents and a land area of 321 square miles (830 km²), New York City has the highest population density of any major city in North America.

That comes out to over 25,500 per square mile. Mass transit is a no brainer in that type of environment - even if it does require major subsidy. That type of city would shut down without it.

However, taking the usefulness of trains in that environment and then believing they would have the same usefulness in Charlotte is the height of absurdity.

Mary makes the exact same mistake that I've seen repeated by so many on this blog who have "big city envy." They say they've visited somewhere, or in their high class tone say they've "traveled extensively", and that in those very brief periods of time in other cities while on vacation it was oh so very nice to have someone else pay to get them around.

The other group usually will be people who have lived in NYC, DC, Philly, San Fran or Chicago. They miss their trains and want you to build them one. I've got to wonder, if those other places were so nice, such utopias, why did you move?

I, too, have not understood the logic of those who envy the goodies provided by other cities. If those cities are so wonderful, why is there such an influx from those cities? The reason I hear most often: cost of living. That's why I came from Chicago. At our rate of tax increases, this benefit will not last much longer.

Everyone talks about foresight and planning for the future. What about the opportunity costs we are undertaking in the light rail system? It's not a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on light rail we forgoe a dollar somewhere else. For example, its a popular notion to say the 1/2 cent sales tax is a "measly" $50 per $10,000 spent. I can assure you that some other free market entities in our local economy would LOVE to earn that $50. With enough $50's they could employ more people, expand their business and do other things that will expand the tax base. This effect would provide a far more immediate payback than light rail system could ever hope for.

To clarify, when posting on the blog commenters should use discretion like the CO’s editors (which is usually a knee jerk reaction with little thought – see the flip flop editors on Belmont) and they should not however use content similar to those used by CO’s advertisers.

Example: Commenting on allegations concerning an extra-material affair by the speaker of the house, with one of his top aids half his age, not expectable. Running a full page advertisement about the benefits “hooking up” on valentines day – A-OK.

The observer is not prudish they are just ruled by the almighty dollar – which they also condemn in editorials (ie google,and others).

Rick and Ken's comments touch on idea that has occurred to me as I've read some of the more vituperative pro-rail, pro-urban comments in Mary's threads. (There are, of course, those who offer insightful and thoughtful comments in support of ambitious transit plans - I'm not talking about them here).

The comments usually include some exhortation to move to Mayberry (one irony is that Mayberry, while fictional, is probably as close to a model of smart growth-type land use as has ever been depicted on TV) or Mint Hill or some other such place and leave the city to those more enlightened than the bland, benighted types who currently live here. Some of the more ambitious posts reveal fantasies with mildly genocidal tendencies in them. After having dispensed with those inconvenient to them, they can then get on with the business of making Charlotte into a model urban city like NYC or SF or Chicago.

As Rick points out, the easiest way for them to have the urban lifestyle, transit and all, would be to live in one of these existing urban centers. But, as Ken states, the cost of living is higher in such places than here. This is particularly true of housing costs.

But saying that housing costs are high in a given area is just a sanitized way of saying that the people who live there earn higher incomes and can afford to spend more on housing than most of the people who want to live there. And what does one do when one realizes that the SoHo loft or Telegraph Hill townhouse just isn't in the cards? Many end up, well, in places like Charlotte.

Last year, there was an event which brought an additional 6,000 cars into Downtown Charlotte, it was absolute gridlock.

Within 3 years, Charlotte will be adding close to 2 million square feet of office space. Additionally, with the buildings announced, currently underway, or about to be underway, there will be an additional 5,000 people living Downtown. As new buildings go up, existing inexpensive surface parking lots will disappear, and be replaced in some cases, by monitored garages charging 3 times the price of surface lots.

We do not have NYC density, and probably never will have NYC density, but the fact that we are getting denser is undeniable, and if Downtown Charlotte remains a desired spot to be, for work, play or to live, how is that handled, and where do these people put their cars?

Can more exit ramps be put on I-277 to handle additional traffic coming in, regardless of how many roads and how wide they are?

I believe a lane on a street / interstate is about 15 feet wide. Add 25 feet for a median, and a buffer of 20 feet on either side and you are looking at a 125 foot wide ribbon of land that has to come from somewhere. A rail line is about 1/3 that width. Taking that kind of property off the tax books would be expensive to buy, and would not contribute to the tax base.

I hate to keep repeating the same thing over and over. I hate to read it when others do it, so I hope to never bring up that gridlock day again, but that really happened as anomily, but will be an every day occurance in the foreseeable future.

The only way to relieve the gridlock anomoly is to sink billions of dollars into a light rail investment that will require millions annually to subsidise?? I think we need to do better

How about we be more creative. In fact, it's been done several times.

Think of remote parking and express shuttle buses used for the Wachovia Open. The Wachovia Open draws thousands of people to Charlotte and it's all handled with aplomb and it's First Class shuttle service. And amazingly enough, it did not need billions in investment and hundreds of millions in subsidies. Just some creativity, ingenuity and good execution were the only things required.

We can always think wiser and execute better. Throwing money all over the place is not always the answer.

First off, I had zero problems getting in on that day, and I park in a lot on 7th street right next to the Arena.

The problems caused that day had more to do with Charlotte, being a small town, having no experience in dealing with anything out of the ordinary. Nobody altered their schedule. Nobody altered their route into work. Nobody in govco coordinated parking. Nobody did much of anything to manage an out of the ordinary situation and nobody knew where to park. The same thing did happen to me last October when I went to see the Rolling Stones in Charlottesville, VA. No planning = bad traffic. Charlotte is a lot bigger than Charlottesville, but we still have that same small town mentality.

The same thing happened last year with the CIAA tournament. People didn't know what they were doing and parking was handled poorly. This year - not a problem. People adjusted.

Now, as to the future absence of parking because of development, in many cases the new buildings Uptown create as much or more parking than is already there with their garages. Sure, you have to pay for it, but at least those using the service are paying for it - unlike mass transit. In other cases parking is disappearing because of things like the third ward park and the proposed baseball stadium. The Uptown boosters are creating a problem, then expecting others to pay for it.

Finally, buses are the flexible solution to these situations when they occur. Shuttle buses from the farther out lots to the arena, convention center, or anywhere they are needed. More express buses from park and ride lots on an as needed basis. We can build this infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of rail in a fraction of the time - just like Bogota.

Sorry UD, but your repeated example of one bad day in the small town of Charlotte, doesn't mean that we are destined to repeat that day after day unless we bow to the alter of rail transportation. It just means that Charlotte has a long, long way to go to be your world class city.

Rick, I saw the same article on Bogata and I have to agree with you. Curitiba (?), Brazil has a similar BRT system and it has done an awesome job. I saw their radial and circumfrential (?) patterns and they were very similar to Charlotte. It was so close it was almost scary. I would fully support this way fo doing things from here on out.

Is not highway construction another thing most profitable to developers? By constructing the outer belt area officials have encouraged tons of commercial and residential development on land that, without 485, would not have seen nearly as much development. We can only expect this to continue over time and as the northwestern segment is completed.

What about the proposed exit on I-77 at Westmoreland Road? Another handout to developers (yes, the developer is expected to pay some of the costs of construction, but not all and certainly none of the additional costs that are incurred due to increased congestion).

If one wishes to be upset over subsidization of development, they need to consider all subsidization, not just the kind they don't like.

Additionally, I don't live near 485. Therefore, I rarely, if ever, use it. Why should my highway taxes go towards funding it? Sound absurd? Well, it is the same argument many here use against light rail specifically and transit in general. 485 benefits me because it, in theory, removes traffic from other roads and diverts it onto the interstate system, freeing capacity elsewhere - just as light rail would. Its cost per mile is higher than rail, its environmental footprint is higher, its level of subsidy is comparable, and its cost of entry is significantly higher. (It is a 'free' public good that requires purchase, upkeep, licensing, and insurance of an automobile...not a cheap thing).

Arguments against transit simply don't hold their ground when compared against extant highway practice. If you are against subsidization of lifestyle and business, start calling for an end to highway funding or pay for the full cost of the roads and charge developers a fee for the presence of road improvements that enable their development. If this does not appeal, then embrace a holistic, multi-pronged (road, rail, bus, etc) approach to transportation in the Charlotte region.

You are right about the Westmorland exit. It's sole purpose is to support a developer's investment and it's completely wrong.

Your assumptions on the benefit of light rail needs to be reviewed. Light rail runs in a fixed corridor with absolutely no flexibility. It can only serve those willing to travel in that single corridor. As such, its cost relative to the few who benefit from it is very high. The road network provides inherent flexibility via its natural connectivity. As such, it's subsidy provides a greater benefit relative its cost. (BTW...I don't buy the road subsidy argument, as roads are integral to the entire free market system and general commerce, not just commuters). Flexible bus transit is a far better solution as it can be focused into the areas where people acutally commute. Bus rapid transit is truly worth supporting, as it's costs and subsidies will benefit more people than a fixed light rail system.

Though I agree with you on certain aspects, Rick, I'm still not supporting that repeal in that a replacement referendum is highly not likely at this juncture. There are people on this board and elsewhere who would like to eliminate the system, bus and rail, all together, and I am not about to let that happen.

Don't count on Maddens winning an election. Once you lose a race two or three times in North Carolina, you're toast politically. just look at opast election results of certain candidates (or ask a couple other posters on this board).

The one-day gridlock you mention was an anomaly. The right hand didn't know what the left was doing.

Uptown is regularly capable of handling huge influxes of people - when there's an opportunity to plan ahead. We host the CIAA tournament without the city grinding to a halt. The same with NASCAR Speedweek in May, and the NCAA bowl (I forget the sponsor - used to be Continental Tire) - and they even shut down main thoroughfares to accommodate the crowds. Yes, it can be inconvenient. But people still manage to get by. (For that matter, a bus system, that can offer the flexibility of temporary park and ride lots around town, would be an ideal way to address occassional issues like these).

The increased density you mention will happen over a protracted period of time. No one's going to be surprised. One of the important things is that prices for parking will have a chance to adjust. People will change their behavior when the economic incentives dictate that it's in their best interest. I know you'd prefer that they do it because they've come to be as enlightened as you, but life ain't like that.

While I'm at it, I might as well address your other hobby horse, the "General Welfare" provision of the Constitution. That phrase appears in the preamble, not in the body. It is not a power bestowed by the Constitution upon any branch of government or the states (though it may be argued that the Tenth Amendment reserves it to the states). In short, the preamble is a legal nullity - it's roughly the equivalent of a mission statement. The preamble also includes a phrase about "insuring domestic tranquility." The General Welfare clause no more authorizes government to provide for light rail than the Domestic Tranquility clause authorizes it to intervene if my wife's a lousy cook (but one can dream).

In fact, federal subsidies of a purely intrastate rail line would have been flatly unconstitutional for most of the nation's history. It was the New Deal court's expansionary view of the Commerce Clause (which is an Article I power bestowed upon Congress) that allows most federal programs to pass constitutional muster today.

So let us go to straight user fees.Toll roads run by private businesses (after the, unfortunately necessary, use of eminent domain by govco to obtain the land. No free school. Lower taxes by 90%.

Police, courts and jail may be the only government functions left as I believe it would be difficult to charge those arrested, tried and incarcerated enough to pay for the costs of doing so. Of course if we legalized drugs incarceration rates would fall dramatically.

Beyond that theoritical diversion, government pays for, with your taxes, some things which are of benefit directly and indirectly, to all. Roads, police, jails and courts (I leave out fire departments intentionally) serve all people whether they use them personally or not.

A few examples, while not necessary for most, may be for some.

Farmers need to get their produce to market, thus farm to market roads are needed. Those who consume such produce may never see those roads, yet benefit from their existence. Even if the produce does not serve them or their neighbors, the fact that it reaches market affects all consumers.

People need to get to work to do whatever it is they do. They walk, ride their bicycle, the bus or a car. While they may not use every road, someone does use the roads, someone else doesn't thus roads they are of general benefit. If you prefer a toll road system, I'm all for it. Pay for what you use.

In the meantime, to say your taxes should not pay for a certain service because you don't use it personally is a fallacy. While you may not use the service personally does not mean it doesn't benefit you.

The argument about rail lite has more often to do with waste and lack of general benefit than to anything else. My argument about subsidies to the well off have to do with why it exists. Those arguments are also ones for waste in the CMS building program and many other city and county programs. However, despite the waste in other programs, most often those are of general use as rail lite is not.

A parking stall is about 10 x 20, or 200 square feet. The going rate for property in Downtown Charlotte is over $300 a square foot, but lets use $300. My math says that is $60,000 for the space to park one car.

Perhaps we should sell PSL's like the Panthers for these spots

Lewis has said that rail is good for moving goods/people from point A to point B over and over again. I agree.

My contention is that this fixed route will insure the sustainability of both points, focusing development and redevelopment on all points along the way.

There is little worse than seeing an area that has been abandoned. The developers ever expanding sprawl encourages abandonment and blight.

There is no perfect world, just one that trys to keep moving in a forward direction.

About Mary and The Naked City blog

Mary Newsom is an Observer associate editor and op-ed columnist who's been covering growth, neighborhoods, urban design, sustainable development and related topics since 1995. In "The Naked City" you'll read her take on those topics and others.